this is probably going to come out terribly, and i don't wholeheartedly mean this, but women have two very distinct options about adulthood: professional and domestic. on the professional level, there are some misalignments, but women have the option of staying at home [possibly with kids]. my sister the other day said, "i just want to marry some rich guy, so i don't have to work." i started thinking, i dont think i'll be enjoying my job forever, and i love to marry some rich chick to support me; but how common are they? i'm sure theres more than a million rich chicks, but they aren't as common as rich guys. even if there was, i don't know if i could bring myself to be in the domestic role. women have that option though. a grown man who doesn't work is between jobs, on hard times looking for a job, or is a bum [or retired i guess]. but its always expected of men to work; being a house-dad isn't common.
but if you look at history and everything, western culture has definitely been patriarchal. men have always been dominant, and for the longest time women weren't considered as anything. i dont think men are really oppressed to the degree that women were [are?]. men tend to do the worser jobs, because men are expected to work, and those are jobs that men can do; women don't go to those jobs, because if they can't get a reasonable job, they can latch on to a guy. maybe its not just that easy for a chick to get a guy, but its definitely easier for a chick to find a man to support her possibly with some hard labor job, than it is for a man to be supported by a woman.
I believe in equal pay for equal work and all that. It never occurred to me that it SHOULDN'T be that way.
Not trying to suck up to the resident chicks on the board, but when I look back, the best bosses I've had have been women, the best teachers (grade school, high school and college) were women and - get this - the best girlfriends I've had were - you guessed it - WOMEN!
Seriously though, like many other groups and all, some women get their back up easy and seem to wake up looking to - or expecting to - be offended, oppressed, etc. What a way to go through life. Ugh. And yes, I know several. You can't say ANYTHING to them that they don't seem to turn into some sort of feminist diatribe.
You just want to say "babe, shut up and eat your salad, already...".
I love women. Not ALL of them, but the whole general vibe of them. On balance, probably smarter than men. DEFINITELY more nurturing and kind and able to "look down the road a bit and plan accordingly". At least all the ones I know.
I have 2 male friends (and one I barely count anymore). The rest? Women, all kinds. All women friends makes me a better guy, I think.
There's only a couple of them that tend to get on my nerves, but deep down they're harmless. They're just like to parrot crap they've heard from professors or read at some extremist website. I don't even think THEY truly believe it as much as they like to get my goat by saying it.
But some women - like some guys - are stupid, vain and tremendously ill-equipped to deal with life and the real world and simply DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT ANYTHING.
Sadly, I know those types too...
In any case, I am not oppressed. And none of the women in my life (mother, sister, ex-wife, girlfriend, platonic friends, ex-whatevers, co-workers, classmates, neighbors, etc.) don't seem too put upon and "held down" either.
[...]Maybe we don't work in oil refineries because we don't want to? Maybe we have less desire to get covered from head to foot with black glop.
[...]
In the USA, for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 76 cents. How about this for a solution? Women pay 24% less tax than men and we also get a mandatory 24% discount on any purchase. Now that would encourage parity.
Perhaps if women were more interested in working high paying jobs, like being an oil refinery worker, they'd have pay on parity with what men make...
Because they make up 55% of the general population?
Nope, 51%, which is probably accounted for by the longer lifespan of women. You'd have to kill a LOT of boy babies to get to 55% females among 18 year olds.
Nope, 51%, which is probably accounted for by the longer lifespan of women. You'd have to kill a LOT of boy babies to get to 55% females among 18 year olds.
Yeah and there are actually more college-aged males than females. There aren't more women than men until the 30s, and then the difference gets larger, until there are twice as many women as men in their 80s and above.
The original thread was about global warming. Someone made the connection between the population explosion and possible resulting increased potential for global warming. I then said that population growth stabilizes when the womenfolk within a community./society/nation whatever, get educated. The big population booms are in countries, many of them 3rd world, with patriarchal, male dominated societies, where the women *are* often oppressed. Trumptman came to the weird conclusion that I was talking about "oppressed women in the United States, where the population is relatively stable, as in most westernized industrial nations (if it wasn't for the thousands of illegals flooding in from Mexico, where traditional family sizes are larger and men are very much seen as the "head" of the household etc). How things get twisted.
Thats what one gets from having a society where men are mostly in charge: the expectation demanded by society of men, and the pressure of living up to that expectation. Let us not forget that old maxim: "Expectation is a prison". (It's the same with women...traditionally, women were expected to be "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen"...I know its a hackneyed old phrase but the traditional expectations of society tend to pigeonhole ones activities according to ones gender.
[sarcasm mode]By the way, there is a teeny, weeny, little, microscopic possibility that men might be more prone to violent activities than woman...., you know...things like starting wars, terrorism, fighting, raping, torturing, etc etc etc....you know...all the world's nastiest and most uncivilized human activities? How many women dictators, genocidal maniacs and paranoid power-crazed politicians are there? I know some folk in here have accused me of being a pinko feminist hippie lesbian...etc etc...yawn yawn.... to stand up for the causes of womenfolk will automatically get you assigned to that category today. It often seems that (many) men always want the pole positions in running the world, but shy away from the responsibilities. It's a bit like what th e US did in Afghanistan...bombed the place to shards but screw the rebuilding.[/sarcasm mode]
Are men screaming to become oil refinery workers? How many openings are there for "women oil refinery workers" anyway? Maybe we don't work in oil refineries because we don't want to? Maybe we have less desire to get covered from head to foot with black glop.
Ever heard of that thing called tradition? Societies' old habits are hard to break. Also, when it comes to physical work, people do tend to gravitate towards the jobs that their bodies can do more easily. Men, on the whole just happen to be physically larger, more muscular, stronger...you get the drift.
Thats what you get when big interfering government reaches into peoples' personal affairs. I am no fan of that either.
Do you have statistics on that? I could come with some battered wives:battered husbands ratios if you like.
In the USA, for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 76 cents. How about this for a solution? Women pay 24% less tax than men and we also get a mandatory 24% discount on any purchase. Now that would encourage parity.
Hey I fully acknowleged that it would have been off-base in that thread and even called my post a rant. I started a new thread for it and didn't blame you, just attributed my thinking to your post. I call that pretty even-handed. If it is my touchy spot then fine. It got a new on topic thread and was dealt with properly.
Note as for whether women in the U.S. are oppressed the title says it clearly. Men are not oppressing, they are oppressed. I said that women continue to claim victim status when they are not deserving of it and left it at that. I didn't rant that you were a lesbian, pinko, commie or anything else.
As for your pure dismissal of how men suffer disportionately within the justice system and the educational system. (Have you thought about the fact that 90-95% of all elementary school teachers are women?) you claim it is because men are in charge. By what measure are they in charge? Because a few men (likely with the full support and help of their wives) run companies and women don't?
You also complain about earning power while showing the same attitude that keeps female earning capacity down. That attitude is that women will not enter a field until they are guaranteed full protection and little physical labor. When you compare women and men with the exact same type of degree and job title the earnings are with 2-3% of each other. The studies that come up with figures like you mentioned (76%) compare a woman with say an English degree to a man with an Engineering degree. The woman earns less because of what she choose to pursue, NOT because of sexism in the comparision. Likewise when given the exact same job women demand more time off for maternity leave, sick children, field trips, you name it. Men can obviously take off for these things too and when they do, the results are the same. They don't advance as fast or earn as much. Finally who's fault is it that she wanted the English degree? Why a man's of course. Likewise if you look at who SPENDS the money, not earns it the winner clearly is women.
You speak about men working as oil refinery workers and women not "desiring" those jobs. It must be nice to have a choice isn't it. Why would a man take a job he doesn't "desire?" Simple, women (who hold the true power here) have determined both societally and also legally that a man that cannot earn is not deserving of love.
Did you read what I just typed....not deserving of love. It is socially acceptable for a woman to leave or divorce a man if she declares he cannot provide well enough for her. Likewise courts will order that men cannot have custody of their children and will order them back to work under threat of jail if they cannot provide for their children. The reverse would never be true.
Likewise if a man declared that the woman wasn't meeting her societal expectation regarding being a wife or lover it would still be declared his own failing. If a man tried to divorce a woman because she no longer kept up her appearance or because she didn't clean or cook well enough, society would punish him right in the pocketbook.
How is having the possibility of losing everyone you love based off of what you can earn an empowered position? It would certainly affect my "desire" about certain jobs knowing that my choice could determine whether I see my children again.
Yep that sure sounds like "empowered" to me. There are no women screaming to be refinery workers because a court would never declare them not deserving of love or an unfit parent because of what they earn and pay. If this were the case for them as well, then they might not be worrying so much about "black glop."
As for men being more prone to violence. How violent would you be if you were told you were disposable and not deserving of love?
It is women in schools declaring boys to be "hyper" and then drugging them up for merely acting like boys. It is women declaring that things like competition and assertiveness that keeps boys interested are "bad and wrong." We have nationwide programs in place to try to insure that when women hit their teen years they don't drop math and science in pursuit of well, flirting and boys. When women recogize their role they drop math and science, when men recognize their role, the suicide rate goes up. It is equal for both sexes until the teen years when the female stays the same and the male rate skyrockets.
Sounds empowered doesn't it? Heard of any programs to prevent male teenage suicide lately?
I assure you if the statistics were reversed it would be declared a national epidemic.
As for violence, how about we make only women register for the draft until 1.2 million of them have been killed in wars. Let's walk together on a street at night and have you declared a coward if you aren't willing to risk your life to save me. (instead of the reverse) You might become a little predisposed to violence yourself if you suffered under these expectations long enough.
In 1920 when the average life expectancy of a man was 65 and a woman was 64. It was proof that women were oppressed. (Suffage) Likewise in modern times when blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites it is used as proof that societally we still have racism, even if it can't be proven.
What does it say when the modern average life expectancy of a woman is 79 and a man's is 73 then? Who is the protected, priveleged class?
this is probably going to come out terribly, and i don't wholeheartedly mean this, but women have two very distinct options about adulthood: professional and domestic. on the professional level, there are some misalignments, but women have the option of staying at home [possibly with kids]. my sister the other day said, "i just want to marry some rich guy, so i don't have to work." i started thinking, i dont think i'll be enjoying my job forever, and i love to marry some rich chick to support me; but how common are they? i'm sure theres more than a million rich chicks, but they aren't as common as rich guys. even if there was, i don't know if i could bring myself to be in the domestic role. women have that option though. a grown man who doesn't work is between jobs, on hard times looking for a job, or is a bum [or retired i guess]. but its always expected of men to work; being a house-dad isn't common.
but if you look at history and everything, western culture has definitely been patriarchal. men have always been dominant, and for the longest time women weren't considered as anything. i dont think men are really oppressed to the degree that women were [are?]. men tend to do the worser jobs, because men are expected to work, and those are jobs that men can do; women don't go to those jobs, because if they can't get a reasonable job, they can latch on to a guy. maybe its not just that easy for a chick to get a guy, but its definitely easier for a chick to find a man to support her possibly with some hard labor job, than it is for a man to be supported by a woman.
Perhaps there is a different way to look at what you are saying. Perhaps when there was fewer machines, and fewer resources, both men and women assumed more traditional roles. As society (Western that is) has become more wealthy, we have legislated opportunities for women to move beyond their traditional roles. However with men we have done the reverse. We have legislated to bind them to their traditional roles.
Thus legally men must register for the draft. Women have the choice to join the service or not, join units close to combat or not, and in taking noncombat roles, insure that more of the roles men must assume are more likely to be combat roles.
With child-bearing we have given women the option of having children or not having children, regardless of how they behave sexually. If they happen to have children, both the government and associated male must insure that the child is provided for. The mother is NOT required to provide for the child financially to be considered a fit and caring mother.
The man on the other hand has few to no choices. If he wants an abortion or even termination of his paternal rights, he gets no say. If he doesn't want her to get an abortion, he gets no say. If she decides to give it up for adoption before he can establish paternity, he gets no say. Finally if she keeps it, he has to pay for it again, with no say.
Bring it on. I'd take a paternity test, then sue her ass.
Have a nice day.
Sue her for what? It would be the government enforcing this provision.
You don't get it. You are thinking that you would have been notified. This is not even the case, nor is it even the required case.
Let me give you a hypothetical. You can respond to it as you want but realize that legally it could fully happen. Suppose you lived in the dorms for a year at your university and then moved on to an apartment or some such thing.
While you are at this university, a girl who knows you gets pregnant. She is an acquaintance and nothing more. She leaves the university, goes home to her parents, has her child and gets on with her life.
A year later she has had the child and things are not going well with her parents. They are upset that she has gotten pregnant, the kid cries all night, they help but they also heap guilt. Lastly she isn't going to be able to get the job she wanted because she doesn't have her degree. She leaves them and goes it alone. She tries her best to support herself but several months later she has to file for assistance. Lets say this puts us almost two years from when she left the dorms and you.
She files and puts down your name. She has them send the information to the last address which they have for you, the dorms, and a date is set to determine your paternity.
By now any mail forwarding you have from that address has ended. The notice arrives there and of course you never get it. The date roles past and the court declares you the father. The court asks her how much money you have given her for support. She replies none for the entire two years the child has been born which puts you in arrears plus penalties and interest.
You graduate, get a job and start paying your taxes. Suddenly bing, now the computer picks you up and they find you. There is no real reason they couldn't before but magically they seem to find you now that you are earning say, $120,000 a year. Without a hearing or notice, they begin to garnish your wages and take the state and federal tax return you have been expecting.
You had been expecting to use those to buy a house, and must now explain to your wife why they are gone, and why she should understand. You also have to get her to believe that you didn't screw and then dump this girl when you have the entire state of Pennsylvania working on her behalf and saying you did.
You investigate it sue to have your paternity removed and after you do the court orders that you do not owe future support. However look at this little bit.
A court cannot reduce the amount of past due child support that you owe.
They will not give you back your money. If you want to try, you are not suing her, you are suing the state of Pennsylvania.
I would say good luck.
Now the point really isn't that this could happen to you because I would hope it didn't. However the fact that it could just by someone naming you, does that make it right? Does it make you an oppressor and the woman the oppressed? Do you support this system knowing what it could do to you?
The man on the other hand has few to no choices. If he wants an abortion or even termination of his paternal rights, he gets no say. If he doesn't want her to get an abortion, he gets no say. If she decides to give it up for adoption before he can establish paternity, he gets no say. Finally if she keeps it, he has to pay for it again, with no say.
Nick
trumptman, I am not trying to argue with you over anything but here is how I view the situation:
Above you mention choices.... abortion or termination of paternal rights.
I think if a man does his part in getting a woman pregnant then that man had better be responsible for what he has done.
I do not view men or women as "oppressed" We live in one of the most free societies on the planet and I would rather choose to focus on what it is we can do to make out lives better as individuals and as members of society.
I know we do not live in a perfect world and I realize that crystal clear but to make excuses in order to abort a child or leave a child with a single mother does not sit well with me at all.
Again I am not trying to argue but I have seen many examples in my own family such as my sister and her children. My sister's first husband cheated on my sister after less than one year of marriage and then "choose" to not want to be the father of his daughter. I do not condemn this guy for his actions but I think it is sad for the children in this situation. My sister's second husband who she is still with is an upstanding guy but has his troubles with the courts and another woman he had a child with before he married my sister. He has a son and got behind on child support. I was just at a court date where by the former woman took him to court and the court made my brother in law out to be the most lousy guy on the planet while I know otherwise is true.
The judge gave him 180 days in jail as his judgement and the prosecution was not even seeking such a harsh penalty. No probation no nothing. My sister is expecting a new baby girl any day now and the judge knew if my brother in law was in jail he would miss out on the birth of his new daughter. It broke my heart. I wanted to submit to the judge I would pay his debt owed. I could not stand to see him be in jail for six months. My stomache dropped when I heard the judgement read. I went into the corridor and had a silent prayer because I was concerned
(quite frankly I was shaken up with it emotionally) with my sister being without her husband during her pregnancy and the shame it would bring to my brother in law not to mention the heartache if he was to be put in jail for 180 days. It turns out the court accepted a partial payment towards paydown of the amount past due and my brother in law is at home with his family.
I thank God for the second chance my brother in law received.
After all the pain and worry I still submit it is very much so the responsibility of a man to be a father if he does what it takes to become one in the first place.
There are countless cases and I can not paint with a wide paintbrush but in the end it really is a function of responsibility.
I think many people are seeking easy ways out etc. of being responsible and that is in part due to our culture I believe.
The fact still remains,,,, we are accountable. One way or another.
I hope for all people in these situations to find a way to solve their troubles. It is really sad to have to spend the time and money in court considering how short life is.
It's just ridiculous to think that through some loophole in the law you think men are oppressed- as if it's some general trend.
"Oh well through a technicality in Section B49 of the Pennsylvania Legal Code, women can theoretically fraud a man out of some cash"
And that's your grand example.
Give me a break.
You want to talk about money? 76 cents on the dollar my friend. Case closed.
P.S. I suppose I would call my lawyer in the unlikely event that your scenario would occur..
76 cents on the dollar, not when comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If you want to use pure amount of money earned per year that is where you get that number. If you want to compare using jobs with the same amount of experience, degree (if necessary) and hours worked you will find them within 1-2% of each other.
It isn't a technicality. It is the actual procedure used. I posted the link and I am not BS'ing around with you.
There are also laws where if you assume responsibility of a step-child for a period of time you can get sued for support of that child.
However the best source of information is often the custodial and the noncustodial parent.
They get their information from her and come after you. It isn't a technicality. It is what they do and have done. You can hide your head in the sand which proves your own bias. If it were women claiming that the system was screwing them out of money, you'd be marching and chanting to rectify it. No one is asking for favors, you won't even admit that this system is wrong. It is painting all men with the same brush and hurting innocent people.
I'll give you another example, one you can try if you dare. If your girl friend called and claimed you hit her, you would point blank be going to jail. Even if when the police arrived, she admitted flat out she was lying they would still take you down. They treat her like a child and you like a criminal. State laws will persecute you even if she does not want to.
That is not not a technicality, it is not a typo, it is reality.
I don't want to re-quote your entire post because that would make this tremendously long. First I hope for the best for your family members. Secondly I illustrated the many options available for women and men to show the differences. I certainly do not endorse many of those choices.
I'm not sure if this covers the topic exactly, but...
Nursing salaries are going up. Veterinarian salaries are going down. It's a trend that happens in every field as males move into or out of the field.
As more men are becoming nurses, the average salary is going up.
As more women are becoming veterinarians, and male vets are leaving the field, the salaries are going down.
This is a phenomena that occurs consistently. I'd say the examples of male oppression are some individual cases that are extreme. We could all google up some extreme examples, but what's consistent is what's important.
Men being in dangerous positions is one consistent point I see, so I think we should figure out why they are in those positions. If it's oppression, then we can talk about a cure. If it's something else, then by definition it's not oppression.
I'm not sure if this covers the topic exactly, but...
Nursing salaries are going up. Veterinarian salaries are going down. It's a trend that happens in every field as males move into or out of the field.
As more men are becoming nurses, the average salary is going up.
As more women are becoming veterinarians, and male vets are leaving the field, the salaries are going down.
This is a phenomena that occurs consistently. I'd say the examples of male oppression are some individual cases that are extreme. We could all google up some extreme examples, but what's consistent is what's important.
Men being in dangerous positions is one consistent point I see, so I think we should figure out why they are in those positions. If it's oppression, then we can talk about a cure. If it's something else, then by definition it's not oppression.
Likewise in true chicken and egg fashion you have to ask, is it the rising salaries in nursing that attracted the men or did the men attract larger salaries. Likewise is it that veterinarians began earning less and thus men left the field or did men leaving the field lower that professions salaries.
In the nursing case, there have been shortages since when I was in college (1988-1993) and the shortages are profound right now. Every person I know who is a nurse is literally working mandated overtime, be they male or female.
This editorial at ifeministis.com says what I have been trying to show about men and education in a very clear fashion. When you look at the trends and think about what would happen if the roles were reversed, it shows clear sexism.
I like how of course many feminists are either not concerned with the decline, or blame men themselves for it.
Yeah it couldn't be a hostile campus when I am walking past 100 gravestone markers set up with a billboard saying it represents the women on campus who will be killed or raped this year by the "potential rapists and domestically violent men on campus"
Comments
You want to feel " Oppresssed ' thats Ok with me....Like I said. it depends on one's point of view.
If history teaches us anything it is that the oppressed quickly become the oppressors.
And besides which, I am the member of one of the last " Oppressed " groups,
Namely : Left handers:
When ever we excel at anything it, newspapers trumpet how a " SouthPaw " has won something or other...Like the Golf for instance...
You want oppression, try living left handed in a right handed world.
More left handers are geniuses, than any other group, but equally, die younger due to dumb Right handed machines etc etc etc.
So Hands up all the left handers of the world & Unite, we have nothing to loose but our " Rights "
but if you look at history and everything, western culture has definitely been patriarchal. men have always been dominant, and for the longest time women weren't considered as anything. i dont think men are really oppressed to the degree that women were [are?]. men tend to do the worser jobs, because men are expected to work, and those are jobs that men can do; women don't go to those jobs, because if they can't get a reasonable job, they can latch on to a guy. maybe its not just that easy for a chick to get a guy, but its definitely easier for a chick to find a man to support her possibly with some hard labor job, than it is for a man to be supported by a woman.
Not trying to suck up to the resident chicks on the board, but when I look back, the best bosses I've had have been women, the best teachers (grade school, high school and college) were women and - get this - the best girlfriends I've had were - you guessed it - WOMEN!
Seriously though, like many other groups and all, some women get their back up easy and seem to wake up looking to - or expecting to - be offended, oppressed, etc. What a way to go through life. Ugh. And yes, I know several. You can't say ANYTHING to them that they don't seem to turn into some sort of feminist diatribe.
You just want to say "babe, shut up and eat your salad, already...".
I love women. Not ALL of them, but the whole general vibe of them. On balance, probably smarter than men. DEFINITELY more nurturing and kind and able to "look down the road a bit and plan accordingly". At least all the ones I know.
I have 2 male friends (and one I barely count anymore). The rest? Women, all kinds. All women friends makes me a better guy, I think.
There's only a couple of them that tend to get on my nerves, but deep down they're harmless. They're just like to parrot crap they've heard from professors or read at some extremist website. I don't even think THEY truly believe it as much as they like to get my goat by saying it.
But some women - like some guys - are stupid, vain and tremendously ill-equipped to deal with life and the real world and simply DO NOT HAVE A CLUE ABOUT ANYTHING.
Sadly, I know those types too...
In any case, I am not oppressed. And none of the women in my life (mother, sister, ex-wife, girlfriend, platonic friends, ex-whatevers, co-workers, classmates, neighbors, etc.) don't seem too put upon and "held down" either.
[...]Maybe we don't work in oil refineries because we don't want to? Maybe we have less desire to get covered from head to foot with black glop.
[...]
In the USA, for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 76 cents. How about this for a solution? Women pay 24% less tax than men and we also get a mandatory 24% discount on any purchase. Now that would encourage parity.
Perhaps if women were more interested in working high paying jobs, like being an oil refinery worker, they'd have pay on parity with what men make...
Originally posted by Stoo
Because they make up 55% of the general population?
Nope, 51%, which is probably accounted for by the longer lifespan of women. You'd have to kill a LOT of boy babies to get to 55% females among 18 year olds.
Originally posted by Towel
Nope, 51%, which is probably accounted for by the longer lifespan of women. You'd have to kill a LOT of boy babies to get to 55% females among 18 year olds.
Yeah and there are actually more college-aged males than females. There aren't more women than men until the 30s, and then the difference gets larger, until there are twice as many women as men in their 80s and above.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The original thread was about global warming. Someone made the connection between the population explosion and possible resulting increased potential for global warming. I then said that population growth stabilizes when the womenfolk within a community./society/nation whatever, get educated. The big population booms are in countries, many of them 3rd world, with patriarchal, male dominated societies, where the women *are* often oppressed. Trumptman came to the weird conclusion that I was talking about "oppressed women in the United States, where the population is relatively stable, as in most westernized industrial nations (if it wasn't for the thousands of illegals flooding in from Mexico, where traditional family sizes are larger and men are very much seen as the "head" of the household etc). How things get twisted.
Thats what one gets from having a society where men are mostly in charge: the expectation demanded by society of men, and the pressure of living up to that expectation. Let us not forget that old maxim: "Expectation is a prison". (It's the same with women...traditionally, women were expected to be "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen"...I know its a hackneyed old phrase but the traditional expectations of society tend to pigeonhole ones activities according to ones gender.
[sarcasm mode]By the way, there is a teeny, weeny, little, microscopic possibility that men might be more prone to violent activities than woman...., you know...things like starting wars, terrorism, fighting, raping, torturing, etc etc etc....you know...all the world's nastiest and most uncivilized human activities? How many women dictators, genocidal maniacs and paranoid power-crazed politicians are there? I know some folk in here have accused me of being a pinko feminist hippie lesbian...etc etc...yawn yawn.... to stand up for the causes of womenfolk will automatically get you assigned to that category today. It often seems that (many) men always want the pole positions in running the world, but shy away from the responsibilities. It's a bit like what th e US did in Afghanistan...bombed the place to shards but screw the rebuilding.[/sarcasm mode]
Are men screaming to become oil refinery workers? How many openings are there for "women oil refinery workers" anyway? Maybe we don't work in oil refineries because we don't want to? Maybe we have less desire to get covered from head to foot with black glop.
Ever heard of that thing called tradition? Societies' old habits are hard to break. Also, when it comes to physical work, people do tend to gravitate towards the jobs that their bodies can do more easily. Men, on the whole just happen to be physically larger, more muscular, stronger...you get the drift.
Thats what you get when big interfering government reaches into peoples' personal affairs. I am no fan of that either.
Do you have statistics on that? I could come with some battered wives:battered husbands ratios if you like.
In the USA, for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 76 cents. How about this for a solution? Women pay 24% less tax than men and we also get a mandatory 24% discount on any purchase. Now that would encourage parity.
Hey I fully acknowleged that it would have been off-base in that thread and even called my post a rant. I started a new thread for it and didn't blame you, just attributed my thinking to your post. I call that pretty even-handed. If it is my touchy spot then fine. It got a new on topic thread and was dealt with properly.
Note as for whether women in the U.S. are oppressed the title says it clearly. Men are not oppressing, they are oppressed. I said that women continue to claim victim status when they are not deserving of it and left it at that. I didn't rant that you were a lesbian, pinko, commie or anything else.
As for your pure dismissal of how men suffer disportionately within the justice system and the educational system. (Have you thought about the fact that 90-95% of all elementary school teachers are women?) you claim it is because men are in charge. By what measure are they in charge? Because a few men (likely with the full support and help of their wives) run companies and women don't?
You also complain about earning power while showing the same attitude that keeps female earning capacity down. That attitude is that women will not enter a field until they are guaranteed full protection and little physical labor. When you compare women and men with the exact same type of degree and job title the earnings are with 2-3% of each other. The studies that come up with figures like you mentioned (76%) compare a woman with say an English degree to a man with an Engineering degree. The woman earns less because of what she choose to pursue, NOT because of sexism in the comparision. Likewise when given the exact same job women demand more time off for maternity leave, sick children, field trips, you name it. Men can obviously take off for these things too and when they do, the results are the same. They don't advance as fast or earn as much. Finally who's fault is it that she wanted the English degree? Why a man's of course. Likewise if you look at who SPENDS the money, not earns it the winner clearly is women.
You speak about men working as oil refinery workers and women not "desiring" those jobs. It must be nice to have a choice isn't it. Why would a man take a job he doesn't "desire?" Simple, women (who hold the true power here) have determined both societally and also legally that a man that cannot earn is not deserving of love.
Did you read what I just typed....not deserving of love. It is socially acceptable for a woman to leave or divorce a man if she declares he cannot provide well enough for her. Likewise courts will order that men cannot have custody of their children and will order them back to work under threat of jail if they cannot provide for their children. The reverse would never be true.
Likewise if a man declared that the woman wasn't meeting her societal expectation regarding being a wife or lover it would still be declared his own failing. If a man tried to divorce a woman because she no longer kept up her appearance or because she didn't clean or cook well enough, society would punish him right in the pocketbook.
How is having the possibility of losing everyone you love based off of what you can earn an empowered position? It would certainly affect my "desire" about certain jobs knowing that my choice could determine whether I see my children again.
Yep that sure sounds like "empowered" to me. There are no women screaming to be refinery workers because a court would never declare them not deserving of love or an unfit parent because of what they earn and pay. If this were the case for them as well, then they might not be worrying so much about "black glop."
As for men being more prone to violence. How violent would you be if you were told you were disposable and not deserving of love?
It is women in schools declaring boys to be "hyper" and then drugging them up for merely acting like boys. It is women declaring that things like competition and assertiveness that keeps boys interested are "bad and wrong." We have nationwide programs in place to try to insure that when women hit their teen years they don't drop math and science in pursuit of well, flirting and boys. When women recogize their role they drop math and science, when men recognize their role, the suicide rate goes up. It is equal for both sexes until the teen years when the female stays the same and the male rate skyrockets.
Sounds empowered doesn't it? Heard of any programs to prevent male teenage suicide lately?
I assure you if the statistics were reversed it would be declared a national epidemic.
As for violence, how about we make only women register for the draft until 1.2 million of them have been killed in wars. Let's walk together on a street at night and have you declared a coward if you aren't willing to risk your life to save me. (instead of the reverse) You might become a little predisposed to violence yourself if you suffered under these expectations long enough.
In 1920 when the average life expectancy of a man was 65 and a woman was 64. It was proof that women were oppressed. (Suffage) Likewise in modern times when blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites it is used as proof that societally we still have racism, even if it can't be proven.
What does it say when the modern average life expectancy of a woman is 79 and a man's is 73 then? Who is the protected, priveleged class?
Nick
Originally posted by thuh Freak
this is probably going to come out terribly, and i don't wholeheartedly mean this, but women have two very distinct options about adulthood: professional and domestic. on the professional level, there are some misalignments, but women have the option of staying at home [possibly with kids]. my sister the other day said, "i just want to marry some rich guy, so i don't have to work." i started thinking, i dont think i'll be enjoying my job forever, and i love to marry some rich chick to support me; but how common are they? i'm sure theres more than a million rich chicks, but they aren't as common as rich guys. even if there was, i don't know if i could bring myself to be in the domestic role. women have that option though. a grown man who doesn't work is between jobs, on hard times looking for a job, or is a bum [or retired i guess]. but its always expected of men to work; being a house-dad isn't common.
but if you look at history and everything, western culture has definitely been patriarchal. men have always been dominant, and for the longest time women weren't considered as anything. i dont think men are really oppressed to the degree that women were [are?]. men tend to do the worser jobs, because men are expected to work, and those are jobs that men can do; women don't go to those jobs, because if they can't get a reasonable job, they can latch on to a guy. maybe its not just that easy for a chick to get a guy, but its definitely easier for a chick to find a man to support her possibly with some hard labor job, than it is for a man to be supported by a woman.
Perhaps there is a different way to look at what you are saying. Perhaps when there was fewer machines, and fewer resources, both men and women assumed more traditional roles. As society (Western that is) has become more wealthy, we have legislated opportunities for women to move beyond their traditional roles. However with men we have done the reverse. We have legislated to bind them to their traditional roles.
Thus legally men must register for the draft. Women have the choice to join the service or not, join units close to combat or not, and in taking noncombat roles, insure that more of the roles men must assume are more likely to be combat roles.
With child-bearing we have given women the option of having children or not having children, regardless of how they behave sexually. If they happen to have children, both the government and associated male must insure that the child is provided for. The mother is NOT required to provide for the child financially to be considered a fit and caring mother.
The man on the other hand has few to no choices. If he wants an abortion or even termination of his paternal rights, he gets no say. If he doesn't want her to get an abortion, he gets no say. If she decides to give it up for adoption before he can establish paternity, he gets no say. Finally if she keeps it, he has to pay for it again, with no say.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Bring it on. I'd take a paternity test, then sue her ass.
Have a nice day.
Sue her for what? It would be the government enforcing this provision.
You don't get it. You are thinking that you would have been notified. This is not even the case, nor is it even the required case.
Let me give you a hypothetical. You can respond to it as you want but realize that legally it could fully happen. Suppose you lived in the dorms for a year at your university and then moved on to an apartment or some such thing.
While you are at this university, a girl who knows you gets pregnant. She is an acquaintance and nothing more. She leaves the university, goes home to her parents, has her child and gets on with her life.
A year later she has had the child and things are not going well with her parents. They are upset that she has gotten pregnant, the kid cries all night, they help but they also heap guilt. Lastly she isn't going to be able to get the job she wanted because she doesn't have her degree. She leaves them and goes it alone. She tries her best to support herself but several months later she has to file for assistance. Lets say this puts us almost two years from when she left the dorms and you.
She files and puts down your name. She has them send the information to the last address which they have for you, the dorms, and a date is set to determine your paternity.
By now any mail forwarding you have from that address has ended. The notice arrives there and of course you never get it. The date roles past and the court declares you the father. The court asks her how much money you have given her for support. She replies none for the entire two years the child has been born which puts you in arrears plus penalties and interest.
You graduate, get a job and start paying your taxes. Suddenly bing, now the computer picks you up and they find you. There is no real reason they couldn't before but magically they seem to find you now that you are earning say, $120,000 a year. Without a hearing or notice, they begin to garnish your wages and take the state and federal tax return you have been expecting.
You had been expecting to use those to buy a house, and must now explain to your wife why they are gone, and why she should understand. You also have to get her to believe that you didn't screw and then dump this girl when you have the entire state of Pennsylvania working on her behalf and saying you did.
You investigate it sue to have your paternity removed and after you do the court orders that you do not owe future support. However look at this little bit.
A court cannot reduce the amount of past due child support that you owe.
They will not give you back your money. If you want to try, you are not suing her, you are suing the state of Pennsylvania.
I would say good luck.
Now the point really isn't that this could happen to you because I would hope it didn't. However the fact that it could just by someone naming you, does that make it right? Does it make you an oppressor and the woman the oppressed? Do you support this system knowing what it could do to you?
Those are the real questions.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
That's your grand example of how men are oppressed?
Mockery instead of thought and answers...
Sorry for expecting to much of you.
Nick
"Oh well through a technicality in Section B49 of the Pennsylvania Legal Code, women can theoretically fraud a man out of some cash"
And that's your grand example.
Give me a break.
You want to talk about money? 76 cents on the dollar my friend. Case closed.
P.S. I suppose I would call my lawyer in the unlikely event that your scenario would occur..
Originally posted by trumptman
The man on the other hand has few to no choices. If he wants an abortion or even termination of his paternal rights, he gets no say. If he doesn't want her to get an abortion, he gets no say. If she decides to give it up for adoption before he can establish paternity, he gets no say. Finally if she keeps it, he has to pay for it again, with no say.
Nick
trumptman, I am not trying to argue with you over anything but here is how I view the situation:
Above you mention choices.... abortion or termination of paternal rights.
I think if a man does his part in getting a woman pregnant then that man had better be responsible for what he has done.
I do not view men or women as "oppressed" We live in one of the most free societies on the planet and I would rather choose to focus on what it is we can do to make out lives better as individuals and as members of society.
I know we do not live in a perfect world and I realize that crystal clear but to make excuses in order to abort a child or leave a child with a single mother does not sit well with me at all.
Again I am not trying to argue but I have seen many examples in my own family such as my sister and her children. My sister's first husband cheated on my sister after less than one year of marriage and then "choose" to not want to be the father of his daughter. I do not condemn this guy for his actions but I think it is sad for the children in this situation. My sister's second husband who she is still with is an upstanding guy but has his troubles with the courts and another woman he had a child with before he married my sister. He has a son and got behind on child support. I was just at a court date where by the former woman took him to court and the court made my brother in law out to be the most lousy guy on the planet while I know otherwise is true.
The judge gave him 180 days in jail as his judgement and the prosecution was not even seeking such a harsh penalty. No probation no nothing. My sister is expecting a new baby girl any day now and the judge knew if my brother in law was in jail he would miss out on the birth of his new daughter. It broke my heart. I wanted to submit to the judge I would pay his debt owed. I could not stand to see him be in jail for six months. My stomache dropped when I heard the judgement read. I went into the corridor and had a silent prayer because I was concerned
(quite frankly I was shaken up with it emotionally) with my sister being without her husband during her pregnancy and the shame it would bring to my brother in law not to mention the heartache if he was to be put in jail for 180 days. It turns out the court accepted a partial payment towards paydown of the amount past due and my brother in law is at home with his family.
I thank God for the second chance my brother in law received.
After all the pain and worry I still submit it is very much so the responsibility of a man to be a father if he does what it takes to become one in the first place.
There are countless cases and I can not paint with a wide paintbrush but in the end it really is a function of responsibility.
I think many people are seeking easy ways out etc. of being responsible and that is in part due to our culture I believe.
The fact still remains,,,, we are accountable. One way or another.
I hope for all people in these situations to find a way to solve their troubles. It is really sad to have to spend the time and money in court considering how short life is.
Fellowship
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
It's just ridiculous to think that through some loophole in the law you think men are oppressed- as if it's some general trend.
"Oh well through a technicality in Section B49 of the Pennsylvania Legal Code, women can theoretically fraud a man out of some cash"
And that's your grand example.
Give me a break.
You want to talk about money? 76 cents on the dollar my friend. Case closed.
P.S. I suppose I would call my lawyer in the unlikely event that your scenario would occur..
76 cents on the dollar, not when comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If you want to use pure amount of money earned per year that is where you get that number. If you want to compare using jobs with the same amount of experience, degree (if necessary) and hours worked you will find them within 1-2% of each other.
It isn't a technicality. It is the actual procedure used. I posted the link and I am not BS'ing around with you.
There are also laws where if you assume responsibility of a step-child for a period of time you can get sued for support of that child.
Take a look here.
Penn State Human Services
It says point blank..
However the best source of information is often the custodial and the noncustodial parent.
They get their information from her and come after you. It isn't a technicality. It is what they do and have done. You can hide your head in the sand which proves your own bias. If it were women claiming that the system was screwing them out of money, you'd be marching and chanting to rectify it. No one is asking for favors, you won't even admit that this system is wrong. It is painting all men with the same brush and hurting innocent people.
I'll give you another example, one you can try if you dare. If your girl friend called and claimed you hit her, you would point blank be going to jail. Even if when the police arrived, she admitted flat out she was lying they would still take you down. They treat her like a child and you like a criminal. State laws will persecute you even if she does not want to.
That is not not a technicality, it is not a typo, it is reality.
Nick
I don't want to re-quote your entire post because that would make this tremendously long. First I hope for the best for your family members. Secondly I illustrated the many options available for women and men to show the differences. I certainly do not endorse many of those choices.
Nick
Nursing salaries are going up. Veterinarian salaries are going down. It's a trend that happens in every field as males move into or out of the field.
As more men are becoming nurses, the average salary is going up.
As more women are becoming veterinarians, and male vets are leaving the field, the salaries are going down.
This is a phenomena that occurs consistently. I'd say the examples of male oppression are some individual cases that are extreme. We could all google up some extreme examples, but what's consistent is what's important.
Men being in dangerous positions is one consistent point I see, so I think we should figure out why they are in those positions. If it's oppression, then we can talk about a cure. If it's something else, then by definition it's not oppression.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm not sure if this covers the topic exactly, but...
Nursing salaries are going up. Veterinarian salaries are going down. It's a trend that happens in every field as males move into or out of the field.
As more men are becoming nurses, the average salary is going up.
As more women are becoming veterinarians, and male vets are leaving the field, the salaries are going down.
This is a phenomena that occurs consistently. I'd say the examples of male oppression are some individual cases that are extreme. We could all google up some extreme examples, but what's consistent is what's important.
Men being in dangerous positions is one consistent point I see, so I think we should figure out why they are in those positions. If it's oppression, then we can talk about a cure. If it's something else, then by definition it's not oppression.
Likewise in true chicken and egg fashion you have to ask, is it the rising salaries in nursing that attracted the men or did the men attract larger salaries. Likewise is it that veterinarians began earning less and thus men left the field or did men leaving the field lower that professions salaries.
In the nursing case, there have been shortages since when I was in college (1988-1993) and the shortages are profound right now. Every person I know who is a nurse is literally working mandated overtime, be they male or female.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Likewise in true chicken and egg fashion you have to ask...
Certainly. But when I heard the report on the radio months ago the problem was framed as the salaries following men not the other way around.
I have no way of proving that, but it's how the info I got was framed.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I think many people are seeking easy ways out etc. of being responsible and that is in part due to our culture I believe.
The fact still remains,,,, we are accountable. One way or another.
Fellowship
On a disgusting note that ties in whith my quotes above need I even say Scott Peterson...
Very very sad
Fellowship
Where are the men on campus?
I like how of course many feminists are either not concerned with the decline, or blame men themselves for it.
Yeah it couldn't be a hostile campus when I am walking past 100 gravestone markers set up with a billboard saying it represents the women on campus who will be killed or raped this year by the "potential rapists and domestically violent men on campus"
Nope, no air of hostility on campus at all....
Nick